Insights for government, councils and industry
Structured Decision Making for Collaborative Planning
1
2
1
Jim Sinner , Suzie Greenhalgh , Natasha Berkett , and Tim Sharp
KEY POINTS
Structured Decision Making (SDM) provides a clear framework to
identify values that relate to each water body and assess the
consequences of alternative policy options.
Done well, SDM provides a solid foundation for the consideration
of alternatives, benefits and costs required by section 32 of the
Resource Management Act.
In SDM, all values are equally legitimate. The balancing process is
left to the end so that participants can see clearly what the
outcomes are.
With complex and contentious issues, doing SDM well takes time.
Resist the temptation to jump to solutions early. All members of
the group need to reach a similar level of knowledge, understand
each other’s values, and share a degree of trust within the group
before considering policy options.
The SDM framework and terminology will be unfamiliar to most
stakeholders. At each meeting, remind members of the
terminology and where they are in the process.
SDM may not always be conducive to effective participation by
tāngata whenua and others. Check to ensure all members of a
collaborative group are comfortable with the framework for
discussion and analysis and, if possible, provide opportunities for
other forms of deliberation.
INTRODUCTION
Following recommendations from the Land and Water Forum
(2012), collaborative approaches are being promoted by the New
Zealand government as a way to resolve conflict over freshwater
management, and legislation has been proposed to facilitate this
(Ministry for the Environment 2013).
In 2012 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (the Council) convened
a collaborative stakeholder group to recommend policy settings
for freshwater management, including allocation limits and water
quality targets for a plan change for the Greater Heretaunga and
Ahuriri zone. The plan change would give effect to the National
Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM), which
directs councils to establish objectives, targets, and limits for
water bodies based on values, and would provide guidance for
PG 1
3
considering applications to replace a large number of water
permits expiring from 2015 onwards.
The collaborative group is referred to locally as the TANK group,
after the Tūtaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamū rivers within
the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchments. At the outset, a
Council resolution gave a “good faith” undertaking to implement
any consensus recommendations from the group provided they
are consistent with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
and higher level council policies.
More recently, HBRC’s Regional Planning Committee, comprised
of nine Māori representatives of treaty claimant groups and the
nine elected councillors, agreed to “have particular regard to any
4
TANK consensus outcome” .
As of March 2014, the TANK group has met eleven times and
tentatively reached a number of interim agreements, including
on values and other factors the group will use to assess policy
options. More meetings are planned for 2014, with a goal of
making recommendations for the plan change by mid-2015.
The TANK group process is based upon a methodology called
Structured Decision Making (SDM) (Gregory et al. 2012), which
provides a clear and logical framework for implementing the
NPSFM. SDM also provides a solid foundation for the
consideration of alternatives, benefits and costs required by
section 32 of the RMA.
This brief describes SDM, how the TANK group has used this
framework to structure its discussions and how this can facilitate
the process of reaching consensus on recommendations to the
Council. We conclude with observations on how to make best use
of SDM for collaborative planning.
1
Cawthron Institute.
Landcare Research.
3
Hawkes Bay Regional Council.
4
Reasons for the difference in wording and broader issues for Māori
involved in collaborative processes will be discussed in a separate policy
brief.
2
POLICY BRIEF NO. 9 (ISSN: 2357-1713)  STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING
APR 2014
BUILDING BLOCKS OF STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING
The TANK group is using SDM to identify and assess the issues
and options for freshwater management in the Greater
Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchments. In this process, group
members have identified their Values and Objectives, as well as
Performance Measures and Management Variables, which are
used to identify Policy Options and estimate the Consequences of
these options. These terms are briefly defined as follows:
•
Management variables: Aspects of freshwater management
that can be directly controlled or indirectly influenced by the
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (e.g. allocation limits) to
achieve the identified objectives.
•
Policy option: An action or set of actions, using the
Management Variables available, that could be taken to
advance the achievement of one or more objectives.
Consequence: An expected result of taking an action or set
of actions, i.e. of implementing a policy option.
•
Values: Activities, uses or sources of value (from freshwater
systems), i.e. things that matter.
•
•
Objective: A desired outcome in a thing that matters (e.g. an
increase in the suitability of water for swimming in a
particular location).
Table 1 presents a simplified hypothetical example of how these
building blocks of SDM could be used in freshwater planning.
•
Performance measure: A metric for assessing the
consequences of taking an action or set of actions (i.e. a
criterion for evaluating options). These may later be used to
measure and report on the actual outcomes achieved once
policies are implemented.
Table 1: The building blocks of structured decision making: a hypothetical example
Values
Objectives
Performance Measures
Management Variables
Primary Production
Create new jobs in Hawke’s Bay
New full-time jobs in horticulture
and farming
Minimum flow; allocation regime
and volume
Trout Fishing
Improve river for trout fishing
Trout habitat as % of maximum
Minimum flow; nutrient levels;
riparian vegetation
Mauri of River
Restore mauri of river
Cultural health index
Minimum flow; stock exclusion;
nutrient levels
To help identify the consequences of different policy options, the
TANK group first identified Values, Objectives and Performance
Measures as building blocks for a conceptual model called a
Bayesian Belief Network (BBN). See Figure 1.
Models such as BBNs represent a person or group’s
understanding of the cause-effect relationships between
management variables and performance measures, often using
intermediate variables for complex relationships.
This is sometimes called intervention logic, i.e. the rationale for
how a given policy intervention will lead to desired outcomes.
BBNs can be used in a diagrammatic form called an influence
diagram.
PG 2
Figure 1: Developing an influence diagram.
BBNs can be quantified to indicate how much one component, or
node, affects another, and to reflect uncertainty. Once the BBNs
are quantified and agreed on, they can be used to estimate the
consequences of alternative policy options.
POLICY BRIEF NO. 9 (ISSN: 2357-1713)  STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING
APR 2014
Figure 2: Simple influence diagram showing intervention logic for riparian management policy options, part of a BBN. Light green nodes are
also influenced by other factors not shown here for purposes of simplicity.
Figure 3: Example of a more complex influence diagram, part of a larger system diagram being developed by the TANK Group in Hawke’s Bay.
PG 3
POLICY BRIEF NO. 9 (ISSN: 2357-1713)  STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING
APR 2014
Table 2 shows the Values, Objectives and Performance Measures
the TANK group is currently working with. These were initially
identified using influence diagrams and then refined through
discussion.
Some of these parameters will be further refined as discussions
proceed, e.g. the group will need to decide how mauri will be
assessed. It is also likely that the Performance Measures will be
rationalised into a smaller set – discussed below.
Table 2: Values, Objectives and Performance Measures identified by the TANK group (TANK Group 2014)
Values
Objectives
Performance Measures
•
Life-Supporting Capacity
•
Macroinvertebrate assemblage including community index score
•
Mauri and Taonga
•
Mauri
•
Habitat /Indigenous
biodiversity
Safeguard the lifesupporting capacity and
enhance the mauri of
waterways
•
Richness and abundance of native fish
•
Area of wetlands
•
Condition of wetlands
•
Mahinga kai quality and availability
•
Richness and abundance of native birds
•
Reported cases of water-borne disease/year
•
Potable water quality in groundwater
•
Food gathering
•
Household and urban water
supply (for drinking and other
uses)
Improve the health of
Hawke’s Bay communities
•
Potable water quantity (days of restrictions/year)
•
Potable water quantity (Number of people with vulnerable
supplies)
•
Number of jobs in water-dependent sectors
•
Human health and wellbeing
•
Food and fibre production
and processing
•
Total profit in water-dependent sectors
•
Amenity & tourism
•
•
Household and urban water
supply (for drinking and other
uses)
Certainty of water supply for water-dependent sectors (Number
of years with <5 days full water restrictions)
•
Net benefit of policy measures
•
Aggregate number of days per year sites are suitable for
swimming
Improve the Hawke’s Bay
economy
Improve recreational
freshwater opportunities
•
Food gathering
•
Swimming and wading
(Primary Contact recreation)
•
Water flows for whitewater boating
•
Kayaking and boating
(Secondary Contact
recreation)
•
Water flows for flat-water boating
•
Aesthetics of waters
•
•
Trout fishing
Angler days
•
•
Amenity & tourism
Income from freshwater related tourism
•
Kaitiakitanga
•
Tāngata whenua involvement in governance
•
Mana
•
•
Mauri and Taonga
Recognise and provide for
tangata whenua values and
interests in freshwater and
improve opportunities for
Māori to access and use
freshwater resources
Use of Mātauranga Māori in environmental monitoring and
reporting
•
Māori water allocations
Increase identification,
recognition and protection
of wāhi tapu and wāhi
taonga.
•
Wāhi tapu register
•
Tāngata whenua involvement in governance
•
PG 4
Whakapapa and Wāhi tapu
POLICY BRIEF NO. 9 (ISSN: 2357-1713)  STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING
APR 2014
WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDER VALUES
An SDM process treats all values as equally legitimate. There is no
attempt to rank or prioritise values or seek agreement on an
over-arching vision or set of objectives. As such, SDM is primarily
a mechanism for developing clear criteria so that each participant
can see how each alternative meets their objectives. This
facilitates creative exploration of new alternatives in an attempt
to find a solution that everyone can accept. Participants can and
will implicitly prioritise some values and objectives over others as
they consider which alternatives they prefer and what they can
accept. But SDM leaves the balancing process to the end so that
participants can see clearly what the outcomes are and decide
whether a given outcome set is acceptable.
This differs somewhat from the approach that has been used in
Canterbury, where a regional committee developed a set of
agreed targets. There, the task of each of ten collaborative zone
committees is to develop an implementation plan to achieve the
targets within its zone (Salmon 2012). Gregory et al. (2012), in
contrast, recommend against specifying targets that must be met,
as this precludes alternatives that do not quite achieve a given
target. A zone committee could, however, use SDM to assess
alternatives for how quickly or with what degree of certainty
targets would be met, and to assess consequences other than
those included in the targets.
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING POLICY OPTIONS
The TANK group has also identified a long list of Management
Variables that could be incorporated in policy options. Some of
these Management Variables are within the control of HBRC
while others are steps that landowners, city and district councils,
industry bodies and others could initiate themselves. Within the
range of things HBRC can do, the NPSFM requires HBRC to
address certain matters in the plan change for the Greater
Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchments – such as allocation limits,
low flow restrictions on abstractions and water quality limits –
while other Management Variables are things that HBRC could do
outside the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP), such as
removing barriers to fish passage, increasing technical assistance
to farmers, assisting with water storage proposals and funding
riparian planting. Box 1 lists the Management Variables on which
HBRC is asking the TANK group for recommendations.
Using the SDM framework, the TANK group has begun the
process of identifying and assessing policy options for the four
catchments. Some options are generic across the area (e.g. a
target for security of supply for water users), whereas others will
be specific to a catchment or reach (e.g. a flow setting or water
quality limit based on a particular use or value).
PG 5
Box 1: Management variables expected to be included in plan
change recommendations of the TANK group
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Flow regime (e.g. abstraction restrictions at low flows,
including rules on groundwater /surface water connectivity)
Water allocation (including for municipal and domestic
supply)
Policy on security of water supply
Surface water and groundwater quality limits
Tāngata whenua involvement in freshwater decision making
Use of Mātauranga Māori in monitoring and reporting
Wāhi tapu register
Policies, rules and incentives on:
o riparian management & stock exclusion
o water storage
o water efficiency
o water sharing/transfer
o nutrient loss/allocation
o good irrigation practices
o stormwater management
o other agricultural practices
Source: TANK Group 2014.
Under SDM, each option is assessed to estimate its likely
consequences in terms of the performance measures, which link
back to stakeholder values. Table 3 provides an example of how
options would be assessed against the performance measures.
Table 3: Hypothetical example of the consequences of different
Policy Options. Performance measures are derived from Values
(see Table 1)
Option A
Performance
Measures
Raise min
flow &
Nutrient cap
Option B
Option C
Current min Reduced min
flow & Stock flow & Stock
exclusion
exclusion
New full-time jobs
in horticulture &
farming
Loss of x
jobs (how
many?)
No change
in jobs
Gain of x
jobs (how
many?)
Trout habitat
as % of maximum
90% of trout
habitat
70% of trout
habitat
50% of trout
habitat
Good
Fair
Fair-Poor
Cultural health
index
After an initial set of policy options has been considered, the
group refines the options and updates the consequences table.
The aim is to find a mix of policy options that is likely to advance
all the objectives identified by the stakeholders, so that everyone
has a reason to support the proposed solution.
POLICY BRIEF NO. 9 (ISSN: 2357-1713)  STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING
Gregory et al. (2012) reported that, with sufficient time, groups
often come up with creative solutions to seemingly intractable
problems.
Provided deliberations have been robust – acknowledging and
addressing conflict, and informed by science – and all significant
interests, including the council, have been involved, the council
would be expected to give effect to the consensus
recommendations via a proposed plan change.
If the group is unable to reach consensus, it can report to the
council on two or more options it considered, indicating its
assessment of the likely consequences of each and the reasons it
was unable to reach agreement.
OBSERVATIONS ON STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING
From our experience with SDM in Hawke’s Bay, we have several
observations and reflections.
CHOOSING AND USING PERFORMANCE MEASURES
For each objective identified by a participant, there should be a
performance measure (PM) to assess how well any proposed
solution delivers on that objective and the values that underpin it.
In choosing PMs, groups should consider what data already exists
and what data might be used later to monitor how well policies
are delivering on objectives. Performance Measures that are
already being monitored will provide a baseline for comparison,
facilitating use for estimating consequences and for policy
evaluation later. But for some important objectives there are no
existing indicators, so new PMs will be needed.
Because some objectives are influenced by many factors, it can
be difficult to find a PM that is closely related to the objective of
concern and significantly influenced by management variables
included in policy options. This can be especially true of social
and economic objectives. For example, regional employment may
be a good PM for concerns about the economic well-being of a
community but in practice the employment effects of a plan
change could be lost in the noise of weather variability, prices in
global markets, and exchange rate fluctuations. A better PM
might therefore be the number of employees on farms and
orchards, if this can be estimated as a function of watermanagement decisions. However, if the plan change really is
likely to be insignificant in terms of regional employment, the
group should consider whether there is actually a somewhat
different objective that is more important, such as financial
viability of existing businesses.
In the TANK process, the complexity of the social-ecological
system associated with freshwater has led to a large number of
performance measures (Table 2). Gregory et al. (2012)
recommend having no more than ten performance measures for
PG 6
a given decision. The TANK group could rationalise its 26
measures to a smaller number by grouping those that respond
similarly to management decisions. For example, several instream PMs have been tentatively grouped and assessed using
simple qualitative descriptors of “improved, the same, worse”.
Grouping PMs should be done only after the first round of
assessing consequences. If done earlier, some participants might
feel their values are being diluted or ignored by being lumped in
with others. Participants need to be confident that any proxy or
grouped PM still provides a good indication of the consequences
for their values.
Information to estimate consequences will be better for some
PMs than for others. For some PMs, it might be necessary to rely
on expert judgement or a range of values agreed by the
stakeholder group. While imperfect, this is often the reality, and
SDM can help make this uncertainty more transparent.
FINDING SOLUTIONS
Collaborative groups should resist the temptation to jump to
solutions early.
People need an opportunity to talk and to learn together,
about both the facts basis and the values basis for choices.
Preferences that seem fixed at the beginning of a process
may change as a result. In this sense, people are more like
architects than archaeologists, building their values from
the information and cues that are at hand, rather than
simply uncovering them (Gregory et al. 2012, p. 26).
It is important first to get all members of the group to a similar
level of knowledge, to understand each other’s values, and to
build a degree of trust within the group. This is as important for
council staff as for other members of the group, many of whom
will be under time or other pressures from their respective
organisations to resolve the issues. Senior managers need to give
the process time to develop mutual understanding and then
room to explore a range of alternatives. At the same time, the
council is also a stakeholder and needs to state its own values
and objectives and engage in the solution-finding process with
the rest of the group (Berkett & Sinner 2013).
To start the policy consideration process, Gregory et al. (2012)
suggest creating “bookend alternatives”, i.e. policy options that
best meet only one or a few objectives. For example, one
bookend might be aimed at maximising financial returns to the
community while another would be the best possible
combination of measures to improve freshwater biodiversity.
According to Gregory et al., this promotes creative thinking about
what might be ‘best’ for some outcomes and makes it ‘safer’ to
explore alternatives between the bookends.
POLICY BRIEF NO. 9 (ISSN: 2357-1713)  STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING
However, when we asked the TANK group to identify bookend
policy options, they resisted. It became evident that they did not
want to start the policy discussion by presenting polarising views,
but wanted to start building consensus. One group member took
the initiative and presented what they considered to be a
moderate proposal for the group to use as a starting point. There
was some consternation when another group member
responded with their preferred position (seen by some as
extreme) on a key management variable.
The TANK group is still considering policy options, so we have no
firm advice on how to resolve this dilemma other than to be
flexible and try to encourage creativity before settling on a
solution.
KEEPING ON TRACK
Finally, the SDM framework and terminology can be confusing to
those unfamiliar with it. In the TANK group, which typically has
4–8 weeks between meetings, we have used the diagrams in
Tables 1 and 3 at each TANK meeting to remind members of the
terminology and where we are in the process. Without this,
stakeholders can easily lose track of the purpose of a discussion
or how policy options are going to be assembled and assessed.
A tāngata whenua member of the TANK group has noted that
SDM may not always be conducive to effective participation by
tāngata whenua. They saw SDM as somewhat regimented and
not inclusive of the open-ended discussion that characterises
tikanga Māori. Another member added:
… it is not just a problem for tāngata whenua but for all
participants. It is important … to allow sufficient time and
space for free dialogue … It's simply all about making sure
everyone feels they've had a chance to have their say on
what's important to them and some chance to fit it into a
decision-making framework. Thanks to the tāngata whenua
member for highlighting this! (email from TANK member)
Other members of the TANK group have commented that the
large time commitment required “above and beyond our day jobs”
is a significant burden and have expressed frustration at the time
taken to work through the SDM framework. “The process may
have advantages but the costs need to be factored into that,” one
said. Another suggested dropping the “bonding sessions we had
to sit through”. However, some of these sessions were precisely
intended to allow members to have their say on what’s important
to them and some chance to fit into the decision-making
framework. So the group needs to find a way to balance these
two ostensibly conflicting requests.
opportunities for other forms of deliberation. This might mean
getting ‘off track’ temporarily in terms of SDM – and possibly
extend the time required to reach decisions – but this reinforces
the point that there is no ‘single path’ to reach the final
destination of a consensus decision about freshwater
management.
FINAL THOUGHTS
As more councils move to give effect to the NPSFM utilising
collaborative planning, SDM provides a flexible yet structured
process for organising discussions and analysis by collaborative
groups. As with any process, time, trust, and space are important
components for its success. The experiences from the TANK
process, as it moves to fruition, are providing an evidence-base
on SDM’s strengths and weaknesses as well as challenges from
which other councils and collaborative processes can learn.
REFERENCES
Berkett N, Sinner J 2013. Collaborative processes and the roles of
council. Cawthron Report 2424. Prepared for the Ministry
of Business, Innovation and Employment and Landcare
Research. www.cawthron.org.nz.
Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D
2012. Structured decision making: a practical guide to
environmental management choices. Chichester, West
Sussex, UK, Wiley-Blackwell.
Land and Water Forum 2012. Third report of the Land and Water
Forum: managing water quality and allocating water.
Ministry for the Environment 2013. Freshwater reform 2013 and
beyond. Wellington, Ministry for the Environment.
Salmon G 2012. Canterbury Water Management Strategy – a case
study in collaborative governance. Report prepared for
Ministry for the Environment. Nelson, New Zealand,
Ecologic Foundation.
https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmentalgovernance/canterbury-water-managementstrategy/index.html.
TANK Group 2014. Collaborative decision making for freshwater
resources in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Region:
TANK Group Report 1: Interim Agreements.
http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/HawkesBay/Projects/Pages/tank.aspx
While SDM helps focus discussion on the elements essential to a
decision, it is important to check occasionally with all members of
a collaborative group to ensure they are comfortable with the
framework for discussion and analysis and, if possible, provide
PG 7
POLICY BRIEF NO. 9 (ISSN: 2357-1713)  STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING